"BUGS": Bible Search reference ranges

1) While 'COMMON DIVISIONS' includes both 'Entire Bible' and 'Old and New Testament' -- longer and shorter canon -- there is no equivalent for the OT. There the only alternatives are 'Old Testament', and 'Apocrypha'. No alternative that combines the two. There really should be -- especially as I'm using Verbum settings, which kind of presupposes that I consider the Apocrypha to be part of the OT.

2) When I create such a reference range myself, it comes up as

No other reference range adds 'Bible' before the references. Why does this?

And while I'm at it:

3) Could you please sort the 'homemade' reference ranges canonically instead of alphabetically. It would make it so much easier to find the one I want.

4) Personally, I think I would prefer having 'COMMON DIVISIONS' -- including All Passages -- at the top, and the 'homemade' ones below. Or, if the list was sorted canonically, I would prefer having them mixed.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

To help us understand this problem, please let us know which panel you're seeing this in, which Bible you're using in that panel, and which Bible you have set as your default.

Many Bible reference range pickers are "context sensitive" to the selected Bible; for example, I can't reproduce issue #1 in a Bible Search in Douay-Rheims.

Vincent Setterholm

The common divisions are designed around the Bible that you are searching (or, more specifically, around the data type used in the Bible you are searching), or your preferred Bible if you are searching many Bibles at once. So if your preferred Bible is a Catholic Bible (like NRSVCE), then 'Old Testament' will include the deuterocanonicals. 'Entire Bible' just means 'everything' regardless of named section boundary issues. So if you have a Vulgate with an 'appendix' that includes books like the Epistle to the Laodiceans, then 'Old and New Testament' won't include that, but 'Entire Bible' will.

That isn't to say we couldn't create a range called 'Old Testament with Apocrypha' for those datatypes where that might be a useful range. We did just add a bunch of new common divisions (I think for Logos 5.1) to the main Greek, Hebrew and Latin Bibles, plus all the English Bibles with Reverse Interlinears.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/477298#Comment_477298

Thanks for answering. It never occurred to me at the time that the ranges are affected by the Bibles. A bit awkward if you're used to reading from left to right, and therefore inclined to set the range before the Bible...

However, as it happens, the Bible was set to my English Bible collection, which clearly includes lots of deuterocanonicals. My prioritized Bible is Swedish, and also includes the deuterocanonicals, though in a separate volume (with series tag, but, I believe, separate datatype). My top English Bible right now is the RSVCE, which again includes the deuterocanonicals. Plus, as I mentioned, the 'Apocrypha' range does show up, so the picker clearly recognizes that the deuterocanonicals are available. And moving the RSVCE above Bibel 82 didn't change anything: the OT range still says 'Gen-Mal'.

The reality doesn't seem to match your explanations...[;)]

Regarding issue 2, my Prophets range now shows . That 'BIBEL82' wasn't there when I wrote the OP, nor have I ever seen it before. And when I switched Bible, the screenshot in the OP changed to . I'm beginning to realize what it is, but when did this start to show? And, of course, I do not want 'Gen-4 Macc' to become 'Gen-Mal' in Bibel 82. I kind of created that range to escape the narrow canon...

Btw, Vincent, could you take a look at BUG? Weird selection of Parallel Resources, which I've tried to get an answer to for nearly a year. I believe it falls within your area of expertise.

Vincent Setterholm

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/478051#Comment_478051

The reality doesn't seem to match your explanations...

I haven't done a lot of testing of how the ranges are populated when searching groups of diverse Bibles, so it doesn't surprise me that I'm wrong. My understanding was that whatever Bible (of those being searched) was highest in your list of preferences (or based on the mysterious default preferred order if none of the Bibles you are searching are in your preference list) would be followed. But some other design considerations (perhaps some attempt at aggregating the range data?), or for that matter bugs, could be at play. Someone in Dev. might be better able to explain what the code's doing in your examples.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/478055#Comment_478055

Thanks, Vincent. I was hoping Bradley would find his way back here, but he hasn't yet...

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/478712#Comment_478712

Bump.